tv Real Money With Ali Velshi Al Jazeera March 17, 2014 5:30am-6:01am EDT
northeast shrelanka. >> reporter: that brings us to the end of the show but if you want to keep up to date with the news around the clock go to al jazeera.com is the name of the game and see our front page with our lead story and the vote in crimea and its implications. >> trouble on the tracks and look at the explosionive danger of delivering oil by rail through your neighborhood and talking the a journalist turn politician about her homeland ukraine. this is "real money."
>> this is real money. join in on the live conversation. you work hard to provide your family with food, clothing and homes. we spend more on taxes. afrnling 29.4% of the house hold budget. the tax system is a multiheaded animal. and animal whose appetite is affecting every from the rich to the poor and then state taxes and property taxes and payroll taxes and lots more taxes and individual income taxes represents the largest come
moent and the united states has a progressive tax system and we have agreed that high income earners pay a higher percentage of the income than those earning less. 7 federal income tax brackets as low as ten percent, all the way up to 39.6% for the highest earners. the more you earn the higher the tax rate on the marginal income above the threshold that got you into the bracket that you are in. we have done that, that system, because disspite the fact that some think it is a dirty word, america judged it important to use the tax to redistribute the wealth in this country. the taxpayers that earn more pay earn and the faxes are funding the social programs. when you understand that lower income earners spend a higher
percentage of the take home income on the basic consumptions a. low income earner spends more of their income on basics than high income eners. some are calling for a flat tax and everybody is paying the same tax rate. that idea while popular with some has never taken off. but the federal tax system needs fixed and before siding where we are going we look at where we have been. >> flackback to united states during world war ii, fdr president and the country consumed by a war and mass income transaction that exists today. at the time the super rich paying the most taxes and that rate didn't push back until president kennedy pushed back
the rates and then the top rate 70%. big changes follow in 1981 when reagan became president. he made skweeping tax reductions and the top tax rate fell to about 28% for the very wealthy and in 1986 a push to clean up the tax system pushed to eliminate the loopholes. >> the reagan story is cut rates, rationalize the system in '86 and lots of smaller increases that add up to quite a bit of money over time. >> top rates creeped higher and the next major change coming in 2001 and 2003 and george w. bush with the tax cuts and the federal income tax rates has risen to a 39.6%.
>> if you take all of the taxes into consideration, not just income taxes, all the taxes we pay at the federal, state, local level and compare it to the other a countries, the u.s. is right near the bottom of the list. mexico and chili mexico tax less than we do. other countries tax more. >> the big difference is that the u.s. doesn't have a value added tax or a national consumption tax that other countries have. >> i had the chance to talk taxes with someone that probably has more influence over your tax rate. he's not an elected official. he's not a government employee. grover founded a group that opposes tax increases as a matter of principle and seeks a system in which taxes are sifrneller and flatter and more visible and lower. the group asks
candidates to sign the pledge reading as follows, i blank pledge to the taxpayers of the state of blank and to the american people that i one oppose any and all efficient efforts to increase the taxes to individual add net reduction or elimination of deductions. now according to the website, 219 u.s. representatives and 39 u.s. senators in the current congress have taken the pledge never to raise income taxes and that includes paul ryan, who just led the party to a budget deal that increases government spending and lots of other republicans voted for it. i asked what happened? >> two things, obama is saying congress you voted for this, no a democratic house and senate
voted for the explosion of spending, which is the law of the land and republicans are trying to deconstruct it. yes, we have to deal with the damage done by the first two years of the all democratic house and senate and eight years of spending by bush. we have to keep the spending down and step one don't raise taxes and step two, which bush forgot about, don't spend so much money. >> pulling back to philosophy, you heard about the progressive taxes and do you agree we need a progressive tax system and with greater means to pay should pay more? >> absolutely not. i grew up massachusetts, that is a left of center state, and in the state's constitution it is required to have a flat rate income tax. five times they have put on the
ballot through the process, let's go to a progressive income tax and five times the voters of massachusetts voted that down because only if you have a single rate tax where the government looks at all of the people at once and says i'm going to spend more money and you are all paying for it or spending less money and you are all benefitting from the less spending only then do you get good government, if only like clinton and bush i am only mugging 2% of the population, you are getting odd decisions by the government. if we are all paying for the projects we are all listening carefully. >> from paying for the running of the country, the growing income gap has to keep you up at night as we continue to hallow all the middle class and fewer and fewer people able to pay for the services and even the reduced services that we need
from the government, is that worrying you? >> step one is getting the government to stop doing those things which damage people's ability to do well in the middle class and move ahead and make more money. it is difficult to start new businesses at the local and state level. >> should we consider tax increases if they resulted in better incomes or more jobs removing the people from government assistance and making more people net contributors opposed to recipients of the government's aid. >> pink unicorns if they existed, sure, if they existed but raising taxes does not create jobs or opportunities. we tax the rich because they are saving their money. when you raise the taxes on higher income people you are taxing the capital and taxing not consumption and slowing the economic growth for everyone and
the biggest group damaged by slow economic growth are people that don't have jobs. >> this is a big and long conversation and holding it for years and we invite you back and we'll continue to talk about it. good to see you. >> good to be with you. >> there's word of a bipartisan deal in the u.s. senate to extend the benefits for the long term unemployed and extend for five months. that is when the benefits for millions of americans ran out back in december. paid for by extending the customs fees and changing how companies set aside money for pensions and the plan is expected to pass the senate but not clear whether there is support to pass through the house of representatives. >> it is not easy out a there if aur baby boomer and looking for a job. plus the dangerous dark side to
america's growing oil boom, rail cars that could derail and explode in the middle of a crowded neighborhood. >> more oil spilled last year than in the previous four decades combined indicates how much danger there is. >> that and more as "real money" continues. >> scared as hell... >> as american troops prepare to leave afghanistan get a first hand look at what life is really like under the taliban. >> we're going to be taken to a place, where they're going to make plans for an attack. >> the only thing i know is, that they say they're not going to withdraw. >> then, immediately after, an america tonight special edition for more inside and analysis. >> why did you decide to go... >> it's extremly important for the western audience to know why these people keep on fighting... ...it's so seldom you get that access to the other side. >> faultlines: on the front lines with the taliban then an america tonight: special edition,
consider this. the news of the day plus so much more. answers to the questions no one else will ask. >> it seems like they can't agree to anything in washington no matter what. >> america's emergency industry is booming thanks to fracking technology that extracts the oil and the gas. as i told you before the boom giving riesz to carloads of highly explosionive crude oil shipped over the country's crumbling rail lines and hailing from the shale region in north dakota and the trains are carrying sweet crude, high
quality oil and a lot more flammable. it is more like gasoline. 34 hundred thousand train loads and carrying billions of oil rumbled through the towns, big and small, across the country and among them albany, the capital of new york state and this new crude reality has some in albany fearing the worst. >> the trains roll through twice a day and some idling for hours waiting to get into the port. they are 25 feet from where people live. this is very close to a playground where children play. it is also close to the interstate. >> up to a mile long, a single train can haul 4 million gallons of the highly flammable crude. >> this specific brand of crude is very explosive and the cars that haul it, the dot 111 cars are prone to derailment and puncture.
>> the ntsb specially cited the thin hauls that are prone to accident. one example in canada, the cars in use when the trail derailed in july and killing 47 and wiping out half of the town. this is one of the derailments that is sparked the fears in the neighborhoods and the most concerned, a development, home to roughly 180 families. >> the concern is how to get out. how would we get out. you have handicapped people, babied, elderly people. >> albany's oil boom is a matter of geography, a long distribution center, it was a logical destination for the shipments headed out of north dakota to the refineries up and
down the east cost and the transformation catching many by surprise. >> part of the problem that is the state is pre-empted by the federal government with the railways and in a sense it has snuck up on us. >> two years ago when the global partners sent the first payload of crude through albany and today shipping the storage fa sa tillty, 1.8 billion gallons a year and now new yorkers may have more reason to fear, they are looking to expand in albany and at a new terminal 65 miles north of new york city. global partners has not returned al jazeera's calls for comment and when it comes to crude oil safety is a top priority.
according to spokesesman federal regulators issued safety advisers and meetings and conducting safety inspections to verify that the crude oil is being properly classified and drying up the rules to retro fit the train cars to meet the new safety standards. meanwhile, derailments continue. with at least 14 in the past year alone. more oil a has spilled last year than in the previous four decades combined indicates how much danger there is. i'm not willing to allow north dakota type situation happen in albany. there's no way we would recover from it. >> right now 75% of all oil pumped in north dakota is shipped via rail and while the pipelines are under construction it is doubtful they are going to
replace the train transport and distribution is safer and cheeper than rail it is not giving the oil companies the same flexibility in targeting the refineries that are willing to pay the top dollar for the oil. >> well, the job growth is not fastest enough to provide jobs for everyone needing one. the long term unemployed unemployed for longer than six months. among the group, few people face bleaker prospects than the americans 50-68 and it takes them the longest to find another job and that means slipping from the middle class. we have the story of a man caught in the challenging struggle. >> can you get the onions. >> john and lisa say they are in a cash flow crisis. >> it is anxiety
producing and we live frugal lives. >> at 67, john lost the job as a mainframe programmer and in a few weeks entering the long term unemployment. >> it is kind of difficult to find another position like that. it is some what disheartening. >> lorm term unemployment anyone looking for a job for 27 weeks and for baby boomers taking 46 weeks at least to find another job a. whopping 44% of long term unemployed are baby boomers. lisa estimates their income cut by more than half. the property taxes have doubled, and they are still paying college. a we are going to tap into the savings. just, next month.
unemployment is 40% of your salary and our expenses have not changed. >> baby boomers suffer frommed the economic downturn and lost jobs in huge numbers. i think the real question is why they are having such a difficult time reconnecting to ement mroiment. >> one in six workers over the age of 50 found a job after unemployment. >> some of the organizations people aren't particularly happy in those organizations and so it is a question of well, do i want to join them in the misery. >> honey, my understanding is they don't have the openings any way and they are going to hire a 67-year-old man. >> correct. >> they are afraid that the older job seekers are more expensive. >> the latest report is showing more older workers
enduring long term unemployment than other age groups. >> i'm a handy man and i would fit in well with home depot and paying much less and that is still a significant economic hit. >> significant indeed. 60% of boomers that do find a job take a pay cut and the result unemployed baby boomers are slipping out of the middle class. >> we are hanging on to the bottom of the middle class. >> they are so vulnerable if they have lost their job. >> they lost half of their retirement and retiring is not the option. >> i worry about outliving our money. >> to me the glass is half full and i will also plenty to drink.
>> optimism counts, lisa and john feel luckier than others and he's getting a few hundred bucks a month from retirement funds and their daughter is graduating in may. no mat matter what happens in ukraine, russia has lost. those are the words of a journalist turned poll ticks with ukrainian roots. we are going to hear from her coming up.
>> ukraine's prime minister met with president obama and the other leaders throughout the week to bolster the fragile economy and reverse russia's part in the area. crimeians are voting to rejoin russia or staying with ukraine. part of the community is not supporting the vote. the g-7 nation said that the outcome has no legal affect and it is call add flawed process because the russian troops remain in the region. i spoke to a business journalist
before becoming part of the ka natedian parliament. i asked why she believes no matter the outcome russia already lost this war. >> the russian president started with two goals t first was to firmly clearly establish russia has a major respected player on the world stage and in the world community and to do that he had the olympics on which he spent $50 billion and the second goem was to persuade the ukrainians to come on board with the union he's building as willing and enthusiastic as partners. by supporting viktor yanukovich and reviled across the country, even his own former supporters are denouncing him. by
inproviding the crimea area he totally shattered what he was building up in terms of the international respect and status and when it comes to ukraine, i agree, russian's military position is strong and worrying, but in the country as a whole, his actions have persuaded people on the fence about russia, putin is not a friend. this tends to unite you. >> you used to be on our side of the table and now a legislator, and you are on the side of the making making the decisions on the sanctions that could be imposed upon on russia and what sanctions can be effective considering the amounted of natural gas that europe and ukraine uses and comes from russia to the west.
>> i'm in opposition and not government. we are supporting the actions that the canadian government is taking toward the ukraine and russia. i think it is wrong to think that the world and the west has no leverage over russia. russia is now very integrated into the global economy and in particular russian elites really now to have their cake and eat it too. there is the expression in russia putin wants to rule by stalin and living like the westerns. but at least when it comes to putin, rule like an aauthority tarn and it is time to say you can't have it both ways. >> what can you do, you know, is there anything that can be done to weaken the support of putin
and have him change his mind? >> well, also putin and the people around him, and we are seeing action around travel bounds. i think that it is worthying about and exploring action around asset freezes, and that is starting to happen, so i think those are steps that we need to prepare and we really need to understand that this has gone beyond just being about ukraine. what russia has done, and i want to be clear this is not the russian people, this is putin who is an aauthoritarian leader and is to breach international law. the rules we set down in the treaties are being broken and it is particularly significant when it comes to ukraine, in 1994 ukraine gave up the nuclear weapons in exchange for the agreements.
and those guarantees were guarantees of the territory. if that is breached now, think what would happen to our efforts to build nonproliferation agreements around the world. >> it is a pleasure to have you back in this part of the world. a member of the parliament in canada. thank you for all of this. >> great to talk with you. >> that is the show for today. thanks for joining us.